Search

This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) stimulation via a guidewire-reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV) stimulation.Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR with a SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were allocated to LV or RV stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days.Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomized, but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analyzed in the LV (n = 151) or RV (n = 152) stimulation groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV stimulation group (48.4 ± 16.9 min vs. 55.6 ± 26.9 min; p = 0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% confidence interval: -0.20 to -0.05) in the log-transformed procedure duration (p = 0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) versus 128 (87.1%) (p = 0.60). Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV and RV stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) versus 151 (99.3%) patients (p = 0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVR (major adverse cardiovascular event-transcatheter aortic valve replacement) occurred in 21 (13.9%) versus 26 (17.1%) patients (p = 0.44); fluoroscopy time (min) was lower in the LV stimulation group (13.48 ± 5.98 vs. 14.60 ± 5.59; p = 0.02), as was cost (€18,807 ± 1,318 vs. €19,437 ± 2,318; p = 0.001).Compared with RV stimulation, LV stimulation during TAVR was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety. (Direct Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guide-wire in TAVR [EASY TAVI]; NCT02781896).

The aim of this fractal bifurcation bench study was to compare provisional bifurcation stenting with a "re-POT" sequence, comprising a proximal optimizing technique (POT), side branch inflation, and final POT, between a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and a metallic stent.Re-POT proved significantly better than kissing balloon inflation in maintaining circular geometry without overstretch in metal stents, while significantly reducing side branch ostium strut obstruction and global strut malapposition. This should be useful for BVSs, which are more easily breakable.Twenty left main-like and 20 left anterior descending-like fractal coronary bifurcation bench models used 10 each 2.5 × 24 mm and 3.5 × 24 mm Absorb (Ab) BVSs and 10 each 2.5 × 24 mm and 3.5 × 24 mm XIENCE Xpedition (XX) metal stents, implanted by re-POT, with optical coherence tomographic analysis at each step and micro-computed tomographic analysis of Ab devices to detect strut fracture.With Ab devices, re-POT reduced percentage strut malapposition close to XX rates (0.8 ± 0.7% vs. 0.0 ± 0.0%, p 0.05; 3.5 ± 1.7% vs. 0.3 ± 0.6%, p 0.05), conserving proximal circularity (elliptical ratio, 1.04 vs. 1.03 and 1.04 vs. 1.04; p = NS). Mean post-re-POT proximal expansion was 0.6 ± 0.1 mm (+21.6 ± 2.1%) for 2.5-mm and 1.0 ± 0.1 mm (+23.6 ± 2.2%) for 3.5-mm Ab devices, with only 1 strut fracture (left anterior descending-like bench). Side branch ostium strut obstruction was greater with Ab scaffolds than XX stents: 41.1 ± 9.4% versus 16.4 ± 8.1% (p 0.05) and 31.8 ± 3.2% versus 10.0 ± 5.3% (p 0.05), respectively, for 2.5- and 3.5-mm scaffolds and stents. Ab scaffolds showed 2 ± 1% moderate but significant late recoil as of 1 h, reaching 4 ± 2% by 24 h (p 0.05).Re-POT optimized most Ab provisional bifurcation treatments, without fracture, respecting fractal geometry, and without exceeding 1.0-mm proximal differential diameter.